America's greatest criminals wear black robes, not black
masks. I am currently in the U.S. Supreme Court over a case
in which involves the County of Los Angeles creating a false
and fraudulent Minute Order that states I was present and
was arraigned on criminal charges in which I knew nothing
about. I requested of the court reporter named in that
Minute Order a transcript of that court proceeding, but was
informed that no such arraignment took place. I asked if she
would sign an affidavit confirming this, and she did. I
sought to impeach that record in the Appellate Department on
appeal and was told that the impeachment did not square with
the Minute Order record. Of course not, as no fraudulent
record will comport with the impeachment of that record.

I sued and in Federal Court, judge after judge recused
themselves from the case until they got a cooperative fifth
federal judge to dismiss the case immediately prior to a
hearing on a Motion for Sanctions against these judges for
refusing to produce the transcript of the event on which
they relied that I was arraigned on criminal charges. I
appealed this fifth federal judge's dismissal to the Ninth
Circuit, and five days later an Order was issued stating the
intent to affirm the dismissal of the action though there
was only a Notice of Appeal which according to the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedures cannot be dismissed. The
intent was followed up with an actual affirmation of
dismissal with absolutely no record, no Opening Brief, and
no Questions Presented on Appeal. This case, as of Mar. 1st
this month, has been received and filed in the U.S. Supreme
Court, and is now pending. Yet to be ascertained is the
question, "What is the purpose of the Courts?" Supposedly to
avoid settling our differences in the streets. But when we
consider that it is the judges who are themselves the
greatest criminals in America, it is hard to understand why
these criminals are to be protected in privacy of their
criminality.

California judges
fight online posting of their financial statements

An association that represents California judges is
lobbying to keep annual financial disclosure statements
filed by the judiciary off the Internet.

The state Fair Political Practices Commission, in
2010, began posting statements of economic interest for
officials who file the annual disclosures with the agency,
such as legislators, the governor and other constitutional
officers.

The agency was set to begin posting the "Form 700"
forms from judges in 2011 but postponed the implementation
"in response to security-related concerns expressed by
several judges and their representatives," according to a
memo prepared by FPPC staff.

After months of discussions, a working group of trial
judges, appellate justices and representatives of the
Administrative Offices of the Courts and the California Highway Patrol proposed a
process for judges to submit a second version of their
form that does not include information that they feel
would pose a security risk if posted online, such
as disclosures that could reveal a home or work address.

The option to redact sensitive information is
available to all officials under current law and,
according to the FPPC memo, the case-by-case requests "to
redact home addresses for private individuals including
both family and friends have been granted liberally" in
the past.

But the California Judges Association, which
represents about 2,500 judicial officials, says it is
still opposed to posting the forms, which can include
addresses of properties owned by the official, a spouse's
place of business and gifts the official received. They
are petitioning to keep the forms offline, where they can
still be requested as public records.

The debate will come to a head next week, when
commissioners hold a discussion of the issue during a
March 15 meeting.

CJA President David Rubin, a San Diego Superior Court
judge, said the association plans to share with the
commission "our concerns about the particular danger in
which judges or judicial officers and their families are
put in by posting their Form 700s online."

Rubin said that given judges' "unique" and public role
in the criminal and civil justice systems, his members
feel "very dangerous" situations could arise in which
someone involved in a case could simply pull up
information contained on the forms from a computer or even
a smartphone in a courthouse.

FPPC Chairwoman Ann Ravel said this week that though
the working group had submitted its alternative filing
proposal in late January, she decided to open up a full
discussion of the issue at next week's meeting after she
heard that the judges' association was still concerned.